Dhimmitude
has two aspects: one formed by the body of relationships
with non-Muslims, contracted at the historical, social,
theological, and juridical levels of the Muslim world;
the other is determined by the varied reactions of the dhimmi
peoples.

A reader
unfamiliar with this area of history might consider some aspects of
the following chapters as a repetition of my earlier writings.
Indeed, the field of study under review is the same, but this time
the aim was directed toward a synthesis between the dhimmi status
and the concept of dhimmitude. The two fields can merge but they are
not identical. The dhimmi’s legal status is conditioned by a legal
corpus; it is circumscribed and prescribed by what Islamic
theologians consider to be divine laws; its compulsory and
repressive provisions are applied by government agents charged with
supervising their execution. The dhimmi status is thus made up of
eminently concrete and visible elements which constitute a field of
study, easily classified because these essentials are
integrated into everyday social life.

Dhimmitude,
on the other hand, represents a domain which embraces the social,
political, and religious relations of different human groups.
Although these groups evolve in the same specific doctrinal context,
they are subject to a variety of external and conflicting pressures.
The range and intensity of these pressures are conditioned by
durable or circumstantial factors, and it is precisely the
identification of these: their origin, function, evolution,
and their correlations, that compose the field of research on
dhimmitude. Consequently, the realm of dhimmitude is lodged in
evolutionary historical time – in contingencies and alterations
– but within permanent structures fixed by theology. This overlap
between diverse factors – which are irreducible, but at the same
time fluctuating – prompts the diversity of the manifestations of
dhimmitude. Its contradictions, which are not merely superficial,
express compromises between the injunctions of dogma, the modalities
of interpretation, and the potential for their realization.Dhimmitude embraces the condition of
the dhimmi, which incorporates one of its stable elements, but any
study of this status does not encompass the whole field of
dhimmitude which evolves according to various factors. In
fact, the concepts of both dhimmi and dhimmitude are equivalent to
the notions of Jew and Judaism, of Christian and Christianity.
Although these notions are linked, they still imply significant
differences. The concept of dhimmitude restores the dhimmis to the
context of relationships between groups and gives them the
characteristics of a specific “civilization”. It also grants
them the breadth and complexity of history's dynamic. Here the word
“civilization” means a comprehensive system of laws, traditions,
and culture, evolving in duration according to specific and
structural parameters, which maintain its homogeneity, its
behavioral patterns and their transmission. An Armenian dhimmi –
whether in the Balkans, Mesopotamia, or Egypt – belongs to the
civilization of dhimmitude, in the same way as any Jewish or
Christian dhimmi: either Serb, Copt, Greek, or other.As any methodological work requires
precise and accurate definitions, the terms "religious
minorities" and "Islamic tolerance" should be
completely excluded from any serious research in this field. In
effect, after the Arab-Muslim conquest, the Christian dhimmi peoples
remained for centuries ethnic majorities and, therefore, to define
them as "religious minorities" locks them into demeaning
and erroneous concepts which falsify the nature of their historical
identity. Likewise, the ambiguity and subjectivity of the word
"tolerance" – used to designate all the complexity of
dhimmitude – make it inadequate as an area of study which requires
precision and objectivity. This reservation does not
contradict the principle of Islamic tolerance in respect of other
religions, a tolerance which is actually inscribed in the Koran,
although its interpretations by jurists and its application by the
Islamic authorities display divergences. A search for more
precise terminology circumscribes the limits of this tolerance and
defines its criteria but it does not annul it. The expression
"Islamic tolerance" is both too vague and too restricted
to express all the contents of a comprehensive domain covering
history, theology, and politics that extended over three continents.
Furthermore, any objective analytical reasoning becomes specious if
the material to be studied is defined at the outset – even before
being analyzed – by a subjective notion, such as the term
"tolerance". This practice reverses the rational order
which involves examining the material before proceeding to a
judgement. "Toleration" must be qualified in the context
of the Koran, and not in a modern Western generalization, bearing in
mind the diversity of its extension into the religious, legal, and
historical spheres.

This
study, therefore, attempts to define and examine that field of
research which I have called dhimmitude: its various sectors and
facets. The sheer extent of this geographical and historical
multiformity defies the abstract organization of data which is an
indispensable procedure for any methodology. Dhimmitude has two
aspects: one formed by the body of relationships with
non-Muslims, contracted at the historical, social,
theological, and juridical levels of the Muslim world; the
other is determined by the varied reactions of the dhimmi peoples.

As a
pioneering work in a vast subject, this preliminary examination only
represents a sounding line which will have to be corrected,
completed, and amended by other, better-equipped researchers.
Perhaps it will then be possible to evaluate the civilization of
dhimmitude at a historical and cultural level, despite the dearth of
sources in some sectors. This new approach was undertaken in a
previous study, (1) but the present book develops it more
fully.

I
realize that my study of dhimmitude remains incomplete because it is
limited to Jews and Christians. It should be supplemented by the
dhimmitude of the Zoroastrians, located in an inferior category, and
that of Buddhists and Hindus, considered as idolaters. A few books
on this subject have recently been published in India. The picture
they paint is similar to that of regions to the west of the Indian
subcontinent. The contemporary historical negationism in
India, with the collusion of Hindu politicians, is discussed
in detail by Koenraad Elst in his book on this subject. (2)

Like a
giant jigsaw puzzle scattered over the world, the different elements
of the diversified dhimmi civilization should be collected to allow
an evaluation and a comparative analysis of regional particularisms
in order to produce a better knowledge of the whole. I have tried to
gather the specific data of dhimmitude in different sectors of
life. This analytical inventory throughout time and space may
confuse the reader , but it is essential for framing the world of
dhimmitude.

As
the Islamic conquests extended over vast populations from
Spain to India, the conquerors pragmatically adapted their rule to
local circumstances. Although different aspects appear in the
overall picture of dhimmitude, the condition of Jews and Christians
was broadly identical, with a few regional differences, for
instance, the devshirme practice of enslaving children which was
limited to Christians in the European Ottoman provinces. Good
relations between the caliphs and the Eastern patriarchs developed
in the context of dhimmitude, that is, for as long as these Church
leaders served Islamic interests, either by betrayal of their
own peoples during battles, or by compliance and obedience to the
caliph’s designs. These good relations barely influenced the
oppression of the population, as is still evident
today in the dhimmi communities of Iraq, Syria, and Egypt where, for
example, persecution of the Copts coexists with the patriarchate’s
alliance with the regime and the silence of notables.

A
few critics have described my books as anti-Muslim. Such judgements
of intent avoid discussion of the subject and aim to block all
research which is not inscribed in advance within a conventional
fictitious definition of "tolerance". Furthermore,
my publications are in no way concerned with either theology or
Islamic civilization as a whole.

They do
not center on the founder of Islam's thought and policy in respect
of Jews and Christians, but they do explore the different facets of
these peoples' history in their Islamized countries. I have
cited the juridical decisions of Muslim jurists and theologians
concerning the subjected Christian and Jewish populations, with
their koranic justifications, as supplied by these jurists,
themselves. This constitutes a specific domain of Muslim history
which may seem unimportant today in view of the small size of these
minorities; however a researcher does not measure the interest
of a subject by its size. In addition, the populations ruled by
Islamic military and administrative authority consisted of
Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians in Persia, and Hindus and Buddhists.
Governing all these peoples from Spain to India assumed primordial
importance for the minority Arab power, whose ethnic center was
situated in Arabia. It was, therefore, amidst the multitude of
conquered peoples that the juridical and cultural fundamentals of
Islamic civilization were formulated, with its manifold cultural and
scientific manifestations.

My
research only covers the specific and shared condition of Christians
and Jews in Islamic societies. Texts elucidating this domain by the
promulgation of laws, their objectives, and their justifications are
amply cited. This area forms the historical and cultural heritage of
the “People of the Book”, Jews and Christians, since the sources
mention them by name, usually together. Hence, dhimmitude concerns a
joint Jewish and Christian civilization. It was not the Muslims who
were the dhimmis, but Jews and Christians, and therefore they have
the right and the duty to know and to study this history which
concerns them directly, and which forms a part of their historical
and cultural heritage.They must know their own history, examine it,
reflect upon it, and form their opinion. These opinions can then be
discussed, approved, or dismissed by critics.

They
also have the right to criticize the prejudices and laws which, over
the centuries, reduced them to a humiliating subhuman condition. The
self-appointed apologists for this oppressive system might
themselves be taxed with anti-Jewish and anti-Christian racism, or
bias. Their scholarship can also be dubious if it serves to cover up
this history. My research is not aimed at proving a theory, but it
brings together and examines a considerable number of elements,
which are frequently and deliberately ignored. Hence, it is
the amorphous label of "tolerance" which provides a
scholastic thesis and a dogmatic assertiveness.

I
have attempted here to distinguish the varied components of a
condition defined by legal texts specific to this subject. These
regulations constitute a body of explicit laws, recognized by all
four schools of Muslim law, clearly enunciating the rights and
duties of the dhimmis. They prescribe the behavioral norms
down to the smallest detail, even indicating the type of material
allowed for clothing. Historical data complement the picture by
exposing the modalities of these rules, their interpretation and
application in different places, and the popular reactions and
prejudices which they generated.Another crucial element of this
condition lies in the caliph's power to arbitrate and his conviction
that, by applying Islamic laws, he is administering divine justice.
Indeed, the continued existence of the tolerated religions on his
territory depended solely on his protection. Some historical
texts suggest an amicable relationship between dhimmi patriarchs and
caliphs. Others report that the same patriarchs were tortured on the
orders of the same caliphs on suspicion of concealing treasures.
Obviously, to preserve an empire which was always threatened by
disruptive forces within and external enemies required considerable,
constantly replenished, financial resources, coupled with pitiless
harshness. The caliph's – or ruler's – policy, woven into the
contingencies of historical events, and into the solution of
immediate crucial problems, evolved as a function of these
conjunctures. Personal factors, circumstantial developments,
violence, fanaticism, and the cruelty of contemporary customs –
common to every civilization – influenced the course of history.Often the situation in the provinces
was totally beyond the state's control. Nevertheless, one
element in the attitude of the supreme Muslim authority
remains constant and stands out among the disparate and fortuitous
aspects of history: a conscientious determination to
administer justice according to Islamic norms in deciding disputes
between communities and to ensure the protection of vulnerable
groups. Sometimes the Muslim authority, in order to save itself, had
no option but to yield to violence. However, considering
itself to be their guarantor and protector by virtue of the
Prophet's law, the army was often sent to protect threatened
communities. Clearly, the People of the Book would have totally
disappeared were it not for this koranic recognition of the legality
of the tolerated religions – a legality upheld by the caliphs,
sometimes against extremist ulema – and the effective guarantee of
their "protection" (dhimma). Consequently, this protection
seems to be the basis of law and order against the forces of anarchy
and destruction threatening society as a whole. Despite religious
barriers, interaction between communities and personal relationships
sometimes wove a network of human solidarity and friendship;
evidence of this, emerging from the chronicles, casts a ray of hope
on the picture of human baseness.

The
study of dhimmitude involves different levels and the mastery of a
large number of disciplines. Here, a few preliminary points of
methodology are indicated.

The
theological level would consist of examining the many references to
Jews and Christians in the Koran, in the hadiths which explain it
and complement its teaching, and in the biographies of the Prophet
– a body of texts which forms the foundations of the normative
sacred character of the shari’a. The origin, the foundation, and
the justification of dhimmitude are to be found in this theological
corpus. Examination of this material by Islamists, Orientalists, and
Arabists exists but is dispersed in articles or general works.
A first step would be to collect these various writings. A thorough
study of the Jews mentioned in the hadiths exists since 1937.
(3) A second stage would consist of examining the
interpretations of these various texts by earlier Islamic
theologians and jurists, and by contemporary scholars. Modern works
of this type do exist.

A
major example is the study by a leading European scholar on
comparative religions and Middle East studies, Professor Emeritus
Heribert Busse of the University of Kiel in Germany, whose book
first appeared in German, translated in 1998 for the Princeton
Series on the Middle East under the title: Islam, Judaism, and
Christianity: Theological and Historical Affiliations. (4) The
author examines the suras in the Koran, the hadiths, and the
biographies of Muhammad, analyzing the evolution of his attitude
regarding Jews and Christians – from early good-will, even
admiration, to later hostility and war. Another study:
Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Interactions and Conflicts,
by Moshe Sharon – professor of Islamic history at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem – has a useful analysis of interaction
between the three religions. (5)

These
two scholarly works – and other studies – demonstrate the
coexistence of numerous suras that extol an open dialogue and the
acceptance of religious pluralism, alongside those suras which
incite to hostility and war. Both authors provide a critical
analysis of later sources (eighth to ninth centuries), that contain
the prejudices and anachronistic justifications for earlier events.

Some
Muslim theologians and jurists have tried to adapt the koranic
message to modern times.This school of thought is exclusively
concerned with the political structures of the Muslim states and has
not reassessed the fundamental concepts governing the relationship
with non-Muslims. In fact this procedure is apparently regarded as
pointless because of the pre-existing tolerance. What is more, the
concealment of dhimmitude has prevented this tolerance being
evaluated in terms of theology, jurisdiction, and history.
Consequently, it is imperative that Muslim theologians, armed with
modern tools of exegesis, look at their own religious texts for
means to render void the concepts of jihad, harbi, and dhimmi which
were formulated twelve centuries ago.

According
to Islamic doctrine, the Koran is uncreated. The Prophet's words and
deeds related by the hadiths and biographers are believed to express
the divine will. That is why the accusation of blasphemy is not
limited to the name of Allah and to Muhammad, the messenger of
Allah, but extends over all Islam’s sacred writings, including the
shari’a.Sacred texts justifying dhimmitude
should be subjected to critical analysis by specialists, according
to the deontological principles of historical exegesis as applied in
the West, since the West itself is now directly concerned with this
concept. In the absence of such a critical procedure, dhimmitude
will continue to represent a perfect, well-tried, and unalterable
divine schema. All these questions are linked to the nature of the
Koran: whether created or uncreated; whether a part of the divine or
human interpretation of a Revelation. The fundamental divergences
between the two religions of the Bible and that of the Koran
concern, inter alia, the mission of the prophets in general, and the
interpretation and nature of prophecy.

On the
historical plane different levels of investigation are possible. The
first concerns the justification and rules of jihad, since it
is this war which subsequently conditions the dhimmis’
rights, as a function of the tactics leading to victory.

Within
the dhimmi status, the differences between the "People of the
Book" and Zoroastrians and Hindus should be noted. Likewise,
within the category of People of the Book, the condition of Jews and
Christians in Arabia is not identical with that of their
coreligionists in all the conquered regions of the dar al-harb. Jews
and Christians from Arabia were totally expelled from the Hijaz and
their temporary presence there is subject to specific conditions.

The
study of the dhimmi status should record the diverse manifestations
of this condition in the geographical extension of the dar al-Islam,
and their accordance with Islamic laws. This classification of the
available data would allow the possibility of assessing their common
features or their differences, and their evolution as a function of
circumstantial parameters.

Another
section concerns the laws applicable prior to Islam, which were
incorporated into Islamic jurisdiction after the conquest.
Historians have pointed out the influence of pre-Islamic Arab
customs, and the adoption by the Arab conquerors of fiscal methods
employed by earlier Byzantine and Persian regimes. But, to my
knowledge, no comparative study exists of the regulations decreed by
the various Christian councils in respect of the Jews – including
those introduced into the codes of Theodosius II and Justinian in
the fifth and sixth centuries – and the later Islamic legislation
concerning the dhimmi, which borrowed from them. This study would
establish similarities, but would also point to the specific
features and variations in their development within two different
theological systems: that of the fallen deicide people, and
that of the harbi infidels, conquered but equally demonized and
excluded. It must be emphasized that the concept of collective
downfall is applied to non-Muslims. Barred from divine love they are
described as "enemies of Allah" and consequently must be
combatted by "the party of Allah" (Hizb Allah). The
theological and political contexts coalesce in the doctrine of
jihad.

The area
of dhimmitude also concerns intervention by Christian states in the
form of political, commercial, and religious protection, and of the
missiological movements – with their consequences for the various
dhimmi groups. These aspects fall into the category of international
policy and provide a rich body of documentation in diplomatic
archives. Specialized monographs have already been published
on this subject. However, the relationships between the
various dhimmi groups in their interactions with the umma, the
Muslim community, and with the Christian states still remain to be
explored more fully. The same is true of the dhimmi peoples'
liberation movements and the various possibilities for emancipation
from the laws of dhimmitude: integration into a secular state, or
territorial independence. An examination of the inter-dhimmi
conflicts grafted onto these movements, and intervention by foreign
powers, would shed light on wide historical areas which are still
plunged in darkness. Lastly, a comparative study of the
mentalities of dhimmitude and its various manifestations in
geographical and historical space, constitutes a virgin area of
research in the sector of social psychology.

It
should be recalled that dhimmitude does not only cover the
relationship between Islam and the People of the Book; it also
includes the relationship between Christians and Jews. Christian
dogma and legislation relating to Jews was integrated into
dhimmitude. In the following chapters it will be shown that during
the entire twentieth century the interactions of the three
monotheistic religions developed according to traditional historical
schemas, which maintained the same conflictual relationships. Only
knowledge of their structures and mechanisms will permit their
destructive malevolence to be contained in this new century.In this study, I have examined
Christian anti-Judaism only in the specific context of dhimmitude.
Anti-Judaism was innate to the Eastern Churches, as expressed in the
patristic literature and in numerous Canon laws – particularly by
the persecution and humiliation of Palestinian Jewry from the
Byzantine period on. For the contemporary period, I have endeavored
to distinguish Christian anti-Jewish currents from the overall
Judeo-Christian relationship. I strongly believe that anti-Judaism
is not shared uniformly by all strands of Christianity, but derives
either from a theological or a state policy, which is deliberately
conceived and disseminated for strategic goals. Indeed, countless
Christians have opposed anti-Judaism in modern times.

It
is within the context of dhimmitude that certain links between the
genocide of the Armenians and of European Jewry are revealed,
whereby the Muslim world's influence – particularly its Arab
component – effectively determined the policies of the Western
powers during both World Wars, respectively toward the two groups of
victims.

In
pursuance of this research, I have examined the historical terrain
common to Christians and Jews, as circumscribed and specified by
Muslim jurists. This is the matter – both historical and human –
that I have labeled dhimmitude and I have attempted to ascertain its
sources, spheres, and development. Understanding of this domain
requires an intellectual approach that complements the
classification of long-term events. Shackled by silence and
subjection, the dhimmi societies remained static, imprisoned in
historical autism, albeit without ceasing to exist as organized
human groups. It is this transhistorical human field, both
materially and spiritually, that I have attempted to grasp and
interpret within its sensibility and its wealth of significance. The
linguistic, historical, even psychosocial skills needed to explore
such a vast domain would require a comprehensive undertaking by
multi-disciplinary teams, hence experts in various fields will
certainly find omissions in my pioneering studies.

The
mutual animosity of Jews and Christians – acting as a repulsive
magnetic field – has impeded the comprehensive study of
dhimmitude as a historical domain common to the two groups. This is
the basis of its negation. Yet, a thoughtful approach to the subject
can progressively eliminate prejudices and carefully hidden personal
preconceptions, thus clearing the way for the rediscovery of
the human being, within his universal dimension and his nothingness
– which are the two areas of reconciliation.

I
also believe that by analyzing the hate-filled, new forms of
substitution theology – "Palestinianism" replacing
"Israel" – this study may assist those Christians
opposed to such a theology of replacement, which will inevitably
destroy the very essence of Christianity (see chapters 9 and 10
below).

A
comprehensive study of dhimmitude raises further acute
questions fathoming the depths of our identity and the values of
Western civilization. In a review of my previous book, The
Decline of Eastern Christianity. From Jihad to Dhimmitude (6)
Professor Emeritus James E. Biechler of La Salle University
(Philadelphia, PA), rightly points out its ecumenical implications
for relations with Islam. (7) These implications are even stronger
in the case of Judeo-Christian relations, oscillating between
destroying or strengthening the bond between Jews and Christians,
which is ontological and primordial since the Church was born of the
Synagogue, and the Hebrew Bible is the foundation of Christianity.
Consequently, the destruction of the Judaic component within
Christianity would destroy Christianity itself. This historical,
cultural and theological situation – which does not directly
concern Buddhists, Hindus, and others – is totally rejected
by Muslim immigrants in the West. Their opposition obliges us to
examine the Judeo-Christian identity in depth, to evaluate it, and
to decide whether or not it should be maintained in the twenty-first
century. A choice is thus forced upon the fundamental values of
Western civilization structured by the Bible. This
inter-relationship between Judaism and Christianity is not new. It
has developed from the Christian New Testament, and over the
centuries has engendered the diverse reformed and evangelical
Churches integrated into the political, theological, and
philosophical history of the West. It is important to know whether
or not Jews and Christians wish to pursue this dialogue in
order to overcome the prejudices which divide them, or if they are
going to import into the West the self-destructive relationships of
hatred nurtured by the world of dhimmitude, which are forced
upon them by a third, external party. If Jews and Christians do not
succeed in resolving together the Judeo-Christian antagonisms, they
will also fail in their dialogue of reconciliation with Islam.

The
history of dhimmitude represents a panorama of more than a
millennium, spanning three continents. It still continues to appear
today in new forms which drive out and renew the traditional ones.
This history, so old and yet so modern, which is taking place before
our eyes and unfolding on our television screens, when the
media decide to cover it – this ever-camouflaged history, has no
name. In this book I have tried to delineate and define it by the
term: "dhimmitude". This is a painful history of
hatred, suffering, death, heroism, betrayal and cowardice.
Consequently, it is the history of mankind in all its diversity and
all its components.

The
approach to the world of dhimmitude first requires that one live
among the dhimmis, who experience and actualize it. To gain entry
into their closed and silent world necessitates dismantling its
artifices, its lies, and its amnesia – antidotes to the violence,
terror, and humiliation targeting them. This process, fraught with
hazards and uncertainties, will lead the enquirer toward that large
sick body, ashamed of its blisters yet moribund, which continues to
survive, refusing treatment for fear of dying from it. Should
one lift the veil, auscultate and diagnose the illness? Can one
brave the prohibitions and pull down the barriers to let light
stream into the cesspools of history? In fact, dhimmitude is the
central place where the three monotheistic religions collide,
thus making it the requisite terrain for their reconciliation.

The
Judeo-Christian rapprochement that began in the West – although
bitterly opposed by the dhimmi Eastern Churches – constitutes a
major advance and a model for the rapprochement of the two peoples
of the Book with the Muslim world. The reconciliation of the two
dhimmi religions – Christianity and Judaism – is an
indispensable step toward embarking with Islam along the same path
of mutual reflection on the dogmas and history of dhimmitude. In
this respect, those individuals and their followers who initiated
the Judeo-Christian rapprochement could contribute their experience
in a domain which has required much courage, intellectual integrity,
and frankness. Thus, this huge task, which has brought forth so many
human qualities on both sides is not yet over, since it would be
redeployed in evermore enriching and fertile perspectives for
humanity's spiritual adventure in its approach toward the sacred.